Goff on Hughes
June 15th, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarNZ Herald reports:
“If he had have been stood down at the outset that would have been against the presumption of innocence I think every New Zealander – whether you’re a sports star, politician or radio journalist – are entitled to,” he told Radio New Zealand.
He said the presumption of innocence is “fundamental” to the justice system.
What nonsense. Thousands of people get stood down while allegations are investigated. Helen Clark did it on many occassions. A stand down does not in any way go against a criminal presumption of innocence.
“He was entitled to have his case investigated properly, as it was by the police, without the sort of allegations, wild allegations, that were made concerning him and the situation that in the end he felt made it impossible for him to continue in his role.”
You mean unlike Richard Worth, who had Phil Goff jumping up and down making all sorts of wild allegations against him?
The hypocrisy is just so immense.
Tags: Darren Hughes, Phil Goff
June 15th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Does anybody buy anything Phil Goff says any more?
Spin spin spin.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
This is beyond inconsistant, this is outright grandstanding in the hope that we’re all too bloody stupid to remember his past form.
If he had any sense he be maitaining a very strong sclience on this afair. Meanwhile he is conspiciously missing in action over his party being busted abusing the public service.
Any journo worht the price of his ugly tie would have been all over him.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Of course the hypocrisy is immense but unfortunately they (the left) don’t seem to see it that way. The Standard NZ has taken hypocrisy to the next level re Whaleoil but try telling them that, sad that’s for sure. As for Goff I guess he had to say something and he comes off looking all the worse for it.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I sit hear in absolute awe of the utter hypocrisy of Goff. Unbelieveable.
BUT..I just know that an astute and fearless reporter in the system will make it his/her mission to show up this shower of shit for what it is.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Hes gotta spin it somehow.
Of course, a statement like ‘innocent before proven guilty’ is a very strong statement and invokes strong agreement among most people. I guess Goff is hoping the strength of this fact overrides other less convenient facts.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
It will be a sad day for our nation if this despicable liar, Phil Goff, ever becomes Prime Minister.
Vote:A very sad day, indeed.
June 15th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
This Phil Goff you speak of – does he have any relevance to NZ politics at all?
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
The hypocrisy of Goff’s performance put me in mind of that Reagan joke about how a Republican candidate called on a Democrat farmer. To speak to those gathered, the candidate climbed on top of a pile of the stuff “Bess Truman spent 30 years trying to get her husband to call ‘fertiliser.’” On finishing, his audience told him that they’d never before heard a speech from a Republican candidate. The Republican said, “Oh, that’s OK – I’ve never before given a speech from a Democrat platform.”
Goff seems to have a complete monopoly on an identical platform.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Strikingly bullshitfull.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Why was Richard Worth sacked?
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Was Goff simply making allegations against Worth or was he part of the honey-trap conspiracy? My recollection is that he was part of the whole set-up.
At very best he comes across as indecisive, conflicted and unprincipled
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Oh dear.
Goof’s response above is counter to what political commentators and even some left-wing blog authors have been saying on his handling of this affair – let alone what right-wing or Kiwiblog contributors have been saying!
Goof is only continuing to dig a deeper hole.
Oh well, what can we say? Pass the popcorn and coke, sit back and enjoy the battering Goof will continue to receive from seasoned political commentators I suppose
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
What confuses me is why Goff thought he had to say anything about Hughes at all. I mean, he has been overseas, just got back, he could have just refused to make any further comment on the basis that there was nothing more to say. What did he think would be gained from relitigating the issue now?
Digging a deeper hole indeed.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Not saying anything would be better than that statement. The only thing he got correct was the importance of the presumption of innocence – hence the need to have acted immediately with a stand down and no further comment until the police investigation was done so that irretrievable harm was NOT done to Hughes career. Goff did not enhance the presumption he undermined it.
And what he is really saying is that he covered it up.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
You can only really come to the conclusion that Phil Goff is a bit thick.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
In a hole – still digging.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Phil seems to know all about it.
Vote:So why doesn’t he make a ‘blow by blow’ description.
So the public can decide for themselves.
June 15th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
one of the main things that I have noticed more and more with the left, includes both the Greens and Labour is that they are dead set hypocrites over soooo many things. They all seem to suffer from Alzheimer’s as they seem to forget their past indiscretions
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Phil “Harry Stamper” Goff.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
If Goff had of done his job properly and given the serial sexual predator a clear message when he heard of the two cases of Darren plying ACT staffers with alcohol and then hit on them this distressing incident would not have happened to this young man.
I wish someone would ask Goff if he thinks the young man was lying?
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Good question Chuck – the way Labour have turned on the alleged victim in this case has been despicable.
If this is how the NZ Labour Party treats their young up-and-coming supporters the party will go the way of the dinasours – they don’t have that many voters that they can treat them as disposable commodities.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
In my mind, this is the most important part of the interview regarding Goff’s position:
Interviewer: Could you have handled this in a way that would still have allowed DH to remain an MP?
Goff: No, I don’t think it could have been handled that left his position untouched as a member of parliament
Interviewer: Could he not have been stood down at the outset?
Goff: He could have been stood down at the outset…, that would have been against the presumption of innocence…
Goff (apparently) believes that:
1) from the outset, there was no way for Darren to politically survive the scandal, regardless of outcome of investigation
2) It was still appropriate to not stand him down
Either Phil is:
a) Mental
Vote:b) Incompetent
c) Lying
d) all of the above
June 15th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
d
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
It is inconceivable that Goff didn’t know of 2008 and 2009 incidents.
Vote:So I think D too.
June 15th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Aw Phil, don’t u remember Parker standing down over tax irregularities? That wasn’t even as serious as sexual allegations!
I agree: the answer is D.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
You have to feel for their party president with only so many months away from the GE. Where to start with this rabble, surely the whole bloody outfit is now beyond help. Their front bench is nothing more then the walking dead, their policies are the same shit that failed in their rein of terror, lasting nine long bloody years. I for one will shed no tears if they were to fade away into the history books. Some say we need an opposition, probably true but this lot are tied old socialist toss pots that offer sweet fuck all to any argument.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Will Labour have enough money left to contest the Election?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10732419
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Richard Hurst
Parker didn’t resign over tax irregularities. As I recall he certified an online annual return for a company with which he had been involved. Basically, he was certifying that the company had held an AGM and that it had resolved that no auditor be appointed. It’s naughty, esp for the Attorney-General, but probably happens every day.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
“Spin spin spin”
Nothing so sophisticated. This is just the pathetic dissembling of a schoolboy still in short trousers. You sort of wish an adult would take him aside and have a quiet word. Most politicians embarrass themselves, few manage Phil’s trick of embarrassing the voters.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
SSB @ 7 12, you shouldn’t hold back like that, give the useless bastards the other barrel and put them out of their misery.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
So true gravedodger but I was biting my tongue when I posted, I didn’t want to over do it.
Vote:June 15th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
We’ll see Lianne Dalziel standing for the mayoralty in Christchurch rather than face more years in opposition.
Vote:She is already posing as the mouthpiece of the eastern suburbs.
I wonder who else is looking round for another job. Steve Maharey jumped from the sinking ship at the right time.
June 15th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
“Goff on Hughes”
Now that is funny.
Vote:June 16th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Phil Goff took advantage of the Worth affair to get the maximum political mileage and embarrassment to John Key out of it. When John Key kept out of the Darren Hughes case he showed more dignity and tolerance than Goff. I think Key’s basic decency and disinclination to engage in public slanging matches has helped his popularity.
Vote:June 16th, 2011 at 9:50 am
“It’s naughty, esp for the Attorney-General, but probably happens every day.”
Exactly Nookin, a minor thing like that yet he still briefly stood down. While Phil actually tried to first cover up Hughes far more serious allegations against him instead of standing him down at the outset. Goffs actions show he cannot be trusted.
While I’m here, since Hughes no longer risks criminal charges perhaps he would like to publicly say what actually happened?
Vote:June 16th, 2011 at 10:07 am
“since Hughes no longer risks criminal charges perhaps he would like to publicly say what actually happened?”
If Hughes told the truth the police might change their minds. A likely reason the police decided not to prosecute was that the complainant changed his mind about testifying due to the long time the investigation took.
Vote:June 16th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
presumption of innocence. What a crock.
Recent changes to the proceeds of crimes act made it even worse. Can get your stuff taken off you without the cops having to prove you did anything wrong.
Vote: